drawstring wrote:So, does anyone think that having post-UG WE is slightly overrated. I mean, would I really bring much more to a law school if I worked for a year after UG, even if it's the exact same type of job I've done before?

+1. I mean, I get it for people who go back to law school 10+ years out but how much have you matured in one year? IDK

drawstring wrote:So, does anyone think that having post-UG WE is slightly overrated. I mean, would I really bring much more to a law school if I worked for a year after UG, even if it's the exact same type of job I've done before?

Maybe, maybe not. I'll have 2 years of WE under my belt upon starting in the fall and my cycle's gone far better this time around than two years ago. However, my WE looks fairly decent on a resume and weighing that against the sinking medians at many schools makes the answer unclear. It can't hurt you, that's for sure, but only an adcom, not anyone in this thread, will be able to provide an answer.

I have no doubt it helps with admissions, but sometimes I wonder if they overvalue it.

drawstring wrote:So, does anyone think that having post-UG WE is slightly overrated. I mean, would I really bring much more to a law school if I worked for a year after UG, even if it's the exact same type of job I've done before?

Maybe, maybe not. I'll have 2 years of WE under my belt upon starting in the fall and my cycle's gone far better this time around than two years ago. However, my WE looks fairly decent on a resume and weighing that against the sinking medians at many schools makes the answer unclear. It can't hurt you, that's for sure, but only an adcom, not anyone in this thread, will be able to provide an answer.

From this interview with JS, WE seems to be valuable for the maturity it brings about in the applicant:

From your LinkedIn profile, it appears that you too took some time off between college and law school. Do you think students who go straight through from college to law school have any disadvantages?

JS:No, I don’t think they are at any sort of disadvantage, but are they in a different position in life. There is something to be said for having to pay rent! But people gain maturity and experience in different ways. Say, for example, you took time to study abroad while you were in college. Having to fend for yourself in a new country will certainly make you a different person at the end of the experience. So, there are lots of ways to reach a point where you, personally, are ready for law school. If your head is in the game and you are ready to go for another three years of school, then you are ready. If you aren’t ready to make that commitment, you should take some time to evaluate your options.

drawstring wrote:So, does anyone think that having post-UG WE is slightly overrated. I mean, would I really bring much more to a law school if I worked for a year after UG, even if it's the exact same type of job I've done before?

IDK that it's that important as long as the rest of your softs are solid.All the SLS students I've ever known in person have been K-JD.

Same here. SLS seems to be more friendly to KJDs.

Also, U Chi does, too, at least based off my interview.

This is interesting because I read an interview with a bunch of T14 LS deans and while most said about 1/3 or their applicants were K-JD and 1/3 of their admitted students were also K-JD, Dean Deal claiming that only about 1/4 of Stanford's class was straight out of UG.

drawstring wrote:So, does anyone think that having post-UG WE is slightly overrated. I mean, would I really bring much more to a law school if I worked for a year after UG, even if it's the exact same type of job I've done before?

IDK that it's that important as long as the rest of your softs are solid.All the SLS students I've ever known in person have been K-JD.

Same here. SLS seems to be more friendly to KJDs.

Also, U Chi does, too, at least based off my interview.

This is interesting because I read an interview with a bunch of T14 LS deans and while most said about 1/3 or their applicants were K-JD and 1/3 of their admitted students were also K-JD, Dean Deal claiming that only about 1/4 of Stanford's class was straight out of UG.

Quest4Knowledge wrote:FWIW, the following is for HLS using data from the spreadsheets:

Accepted Students with 0 Years WE:Avg. LSAT: 174.8Avg. GPA: 3.93

Accepted Students with >0 Years WE:Avg. LSAT: 173.7Avg. GPA: 3.85

Data isn't complete, but arguably there's a quantifiable boost for not being KJD...

I bet if you take this further there are buckets of years of WE that are better than others. For example, I bet 3-5 years is much better than 1-2 but 20+ might be worse than 5-9.

The argument for WE is two-fold. It shows the candidate considered other careers and really wants to be a lawyer. And secondly, distance in time from graduation makes GPA less explanatory of your current abilities.

drawstring wrote:So, does anyone think that having post-UG WE is slightly overrated. I mean, would I really bring much more to a law school if I worked for a year after UG, even if it's the exact same type of job I've done before?

Maybe, maybe not. I'll have 2 years of WE under my belt upon starting in the fall and my cycle's gone far better this time around than two years ago. However, my WE looks fairly decent on a resume and weighing that against the sinking medians at many schools makes the answer unclear. It can't hurt you, that's for sure, but only an adcom, not anyone in this thread, will be able to provide an answer.

From this interview with JS, WE seems to be valuable for the maturity it brings about in the applicant:

From your LinkedIn profile, it appears that you too took some time off between college and law school. Do you think students who go straight through from college to law school have any disadvantages?

JS:No, I don’t think they are at any sort of disadvantage, but are they in a different position in life. There is something to be said for having to pay rent! But people gain maturity and experience in different ways. Say, for example, you took time to study abroad while you were in college. Having to fend for yourself in a new country will certainly make you a different person at the end of the experience. So, there are lots of ways to reach a point where you, personally, are ready for law school. If your head is in the game and you are ready to go for another three years of school, then you are ready. If you aren’t ready to make that commitment, you should take some time to evaluate your options.

FWIW every attorney that I know either took time off and was glad they did, or didn't, and wishes that they had. There's something to be said for learning how to have a job-- school and work are two very different things. Obviously that doesn't matter for law school admissions, but at least, anecdotally it can play a role in associate hiring.

Stanford: Our [WE] split is just slightly different than what my colleagues offer up about their schools – roughly a quarter of the class will come directly from college. Dean Rangappa was right …it’s about puzzle pieces for me. Someone who has spent time out in the real world has more puzzle pieces. It doesn’t always translate into an offer of admissions, but we do have more to consider as we make our way through your application materials. Don’t get me wrong, though. Putting time between your undergraduate work and law school shouldn’t take place just for the sake of putting time between your undergraduate work and law school. There has to be a thread connecting things. You have to be coming to the process now for a reason and not just because time has passed. Let me add, too, that you should not be discouraged by our 1/4-3/4 split. If you are a senior in college and thinking about law school and you are raring to go, more power to you. We appreciate and we value the perspective that a younger student brings to the classroom.

Yes, we do have a conscious preference for having the majority of our class entering with work experience. That said, I think we are comfortable with the composition we have had in the past few years, and we don’t have any plans to increase the percentage of people entering with post-college work experience to more than roughly three-quarters of the class. So, in the hypothetical case of two otherwise “identical” files, the person who had work experience would be more likely to get a spot than one who did not. BUT, here’s a very important distinction that I’m not sure everyone notices: Our class profile focuses on the enrolling class, not the admitted students. We have a liberal deferral policy at HLS. Students are very often admitted straight from college, then choose to take time off before enrolling. I think that’s a very exciting option. College seniors who are ready to apply now, but not necessarily ready to enter next fall, should certainly still apply.

Makin' me smile

I would consider a deferral if the opportunity presented itself and if the school had the option. Though consider is a pretty loose term here.

By and large, no, not for the most part. That's not really the point though. A lot changes after college and as a result you have to develop as a person. True, some may have experienced a lot of maturation during college, we all do, but you still have a lot more in the way of social safety nets, you're still in an environment where you're not necessarily set in any path. Maybe some don't get a whole lot out of working for a couple of years, but I feel like I've developed substantially more in the two years since graduation than I did during college.

drawstring wrote:I wonder why they have that preference if JS doesn't think K-JDs are at any sort of disadvantage.

It could simply be a time issue? If we think at extremes--someone who will graduate at 22, and someone who is 30, with the same academic profile and same (however they would compare these) softs, the KJD can try again, but the 30 year old is honestly getting on the older side.

Also, I think while it may be a preference, I think it is also because it is hard for to weigh and compare UG participation and softs. It's easy to know exactly what an investment analyst does and how hard she works, but it's hard to compare that with a student athlete. Or, perhaps that investment analyst was also a student athlete--now quite honestly, her softs are just better. So it could be that, as we've expected, KJDs overall have worse softs.

By and large, no, not for the most part. That's not really the point though. A lot changes after college and as a result you have to develop as a person. True, some may have experienced a lot of maturation during college, we all do, but you still have a lot more in the way of social safety nets, you're still in an environment where you're not necessarily set in any path. Maybe some don't get a whole lot out of working for a couple of years, but I feel like I've developed substantially more in the two years since graduation than I did during college.

Cal Trask wrote:A lot changes after college and as a result you have to develop as a person.

Duh. We were just commenting that it's weird that JS would name paying rent as a specific benefit of non-KJDs, when it's definitely not unheard of to put yourself through undergrad. Some of my friends support their parents, not the other way around.

drawstring wrote:So, does anyone think that having post-UG WE is slightly overrated. I mean, would I really bring much more to a law school if I worked for a year after UG, even if it's the exact same type of job I've done before?

Who cares if it's overrated wrt LS admissions/LS experience. It's important because it makes you more employable at graduation.

Cal Trask wrote:A lot changes after college and as a result you have to develop as a person.

Duh. We were just commenting that it's weird that JS would name paying rent as a specific benefit of non-KJDs, when it's definitely not unheard of to put yourself through undergrad. Some of my friends support their parents, not the other way around.

By and large, no, not for the most part. That's not really the point though. A lot changes after college and as a result you have to develop as a person. True, some may have experienced a lot of maturation during college, we all do, but you still have a lot more in the way of social safety nets, you're still in an environment where you're not necessarily set in any path. Maybe some don't get a whole lot out of working for a couple of years, but I feel like I've developed substantially more in the two years since graduation than I did during college.

Those could also simply be changes due to age.

I don't disagree, I'm obviously speaking only from my personal experience. There are people I've met who've be working for fifteen years who have the emotional maturity of a sixteen year old, and sixteen year olds who are just the opposite. Some people get it and others don't. It's unfair, but the notion that it's more likely that somebody who's worked for a couple years before coming in will have a better idea of what they want to achieve (and therefore be more likely to find employment) isn't that bizarre and adcoms probably feel it's a little bit of a safer bet, statistically.

I honestly don't even know what my softs are considered. I was a PAC12/Big12/Big10 (sorry, don't want to give too much away lol) athlete so literally all of my UG softs are related to that in some way (particpation, community service, All-American....etc). My resume probably looks so one-sided which I'm assuming is a negative. But whatever, I didn't have time for anything else because of sports and I can't go back :/

But now I'm in my one-year gap year working as a paralegal so hopefully that adds some dimension.